Time To Pass Law Requiring Trigger Locks

May 03, 1998|The Morning Call

Pennsylvania is an NRA state, they say in the state capitol. That means that it is difficult to pass legislation about guns that goes against the wishes of the National Rifle Association. But recent events -- and a closer look at what the NRA is saying -- suggest that Pennsylvania may be ready for a common sense law that would help protect children and the rest of us.

A western Pennsylvania boy is being held on murder charges following the shooting of a middle school teacher at a school dance in

Edinboro on April 24. The boy, Steven Wurst, is only 14, and police say he used a .25 caliber semiautomatic pistol that belonged to his father to shoot the teacher and wound three others. Nothing can undo the damage done in Edinboro that night. But it is nonetheless reasonable to ask the Legislature to lessen the chances of it happening again.The issue is trigger locks. Last year, Rep. Andrew Carn, D-Philadelphia, introduced the latest in a series of bills that would require simple key or combination devices to disable a gun's trigger or hammer. Other, high-tech devices also have been suggested, including guns that "sense" a licensed owner's fingerprint. That was the thrust of another bill introduced last year by Rep. T.J. Rooney, the Bethlehem Democrat.

We say, keep it simple. Requiring that guns sold in Pennsylvania come with trigger locks is a step worth taking -- and worth taking now.

In the past, measures to foster responsible gun ownership have been defeated because an illogical argument was allowed to govern the discussion: the folly of making the perfect the enemy of the good. Since this is a nation of vast freedoms, we refuse to take steps in the right direction because there always will be those who go elsewhere.

When it comes to trigger locks, however, we reap the results of doing nothing. In just one year (1994) 192 children in Pennsylvania either killed themselves or another with a gun. Half of those killings took place in the homes of the victims and 45 percent involved a handgun taken from a bedroom, according to figures offered by Mr. Rooney last week. Common sense says that a sizable portion of those cases would not have happened had the gun been secured.

That certainly seems to be the case in the Edinboro shootings. Young Mr. Wurst's troubled outlook led him to murderous intent, but it was the easy availability of his father's pistol that enabled the tragic outcome that Friday night.

It is conceivable that even with a state law, a pistol could have been bought 30 minutes from Edinboro, in Ohio. It also is conceivable that a gun purchased with a lock could be left unsecured the very next day. But the cost in personal freedom of this small step is zero. It isn't even a Second Amendment issue.

Many other states -- Florida, Connecticut, Maryland, Indiana, for instance -- have or are considering trigger-lock laws. The NRA has opposed them. But last week, Wayne Lapierre, an NRA executive, said it supports parental-responsibility laws and does not object to manufacturers adding locks to the weapons they sell. It sounds as if the door is open for a real discussion in Harrisburg.

That discussion will proceed if the legislators hear people say that after watching another gunfire-at-school nightmare in their own state, it is important to them.